zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Voting System For Policies/Rules
--I know this is a text wall, but please read the whole thing and give your thoughts on the details. If you don't have time to think about it, just come back to it later. If you skim this and say "yes, we should probably have some kind of voting system", I appreciate the support but unless you're going to come back later and say more, it really doesn't move this particular topic forward at all.-- As you all know, there are a lot of proposed rule changes and the like that are currently unresolved. Some of them are even widely supported, such as the fanon section removal, which came to a vote, and currently has six supports, a few people going neutral in the comments, and no opposes. Yet no one has ended this topic or executed the removal. What I think Zeldapedia needs is a standard system by which policies or other actions, after having ample time for discussion to take place, are voted on, with predetermined rules about how long the voting goes on and what score is required for the proposal to be implemented. If the proposal is sufficiently supported, users (it wouldn't even have to be admins in a lot of cases if we don't want it to be) will make the change, and if it's a rule, the rule can be recorded. We already have a system like this working for promotions/demotions. We can easily use largely the same system. There's more of a need for discussion before you start voting, as a lot of rules and such may need to be tweaked from their original proposal before people will support them, and some discussion will be necessary beforehand to explore the pros and cons of a policy change. Still, it's not that hard to tell when a conversation has run it's course, and can be moved on to voting. People will either stop talking or eventually end up repeating the same points with no new ideas arising. To start things off, I am going to propose we use the same rule list as for promotion/demotion, except only start a vote once the thing has been discussed in a forum first. Here is my suggested rule list (it's mostly just the promotion rules with some terms switched out, though there are a couple other key points): Rule Proposals Version 2* ''*Version 2 Changes: The time limit before a rule/major action is archived as opposed has been increased to 3 weeks instead of 2, and a six vote minimum has been added before a suggestion can be considered opposed. This is to increase the amount of time and attention (be it opposition, support, or neutrality) a suggestion will have before being opposed and closed for a month.'' A change to the rules or a major action should first be proposed in a forum, and discussed until the topic has been sufficiently explored. The exact wording of the rule/major action that is to be recorded should be placed at the top as a level two header, and changed as the discussion warrants it. After this point, a voting section should be added to the bottom of the topic. The vote for each proposed rule/major action will run for three weeks, during which members of the community will vote on the change. The proposer of a rule/major action may and should inform other users of the proposed change. A rule/major action must have a score of +6 or higher in order to pass. If a rule meets the vote quota in that time, it shall be recorded on the rules page (Fierce]][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 06:19, April 8, 2011 (UTC) Comments Yes. However, instead of rule changes, it should be Rules/Major actions. We just need a more effecient system to get these things done. Also, this will be a huge help once SS comes out, because I predict it will be pretty big(unless the game sucks, but it is a Zelda game, so Ninetendo would have to literally try to fail at it), and we get a flood of n00bz, then it will be a lot easier on them. That and having all the rules written down.'-- C2' / 01:42, April 10, 2011 (UTC) I'm completely with this. There's no reason to not have it and I personally like the idea of having a few requirements as it makes it so people have just joined can't immediately start issuing opinions without knowledge of how certain things are handled (i.e. the rules, which we should have up as well). - McGillivray227 02:19, April 10, 2011 (UTC) In agreement with this for sure. -'Minish Link' 14:04, April 10, 2011 (UTC) Yes, we should probably have some kind of voting system...nah I read the whole thing. The only point that I'm not quite sure about is the two week limit, the removal of fanon vote didn't get six supports until two and half weeks meaning it should be considered opposed. Then again that wasn't really advertised greatly. Based on that and that alone I would consider maybe three weeks for the vote to pass unless it gets an overwhelming amount of supports Oni Link 16:56, April 10, 2011 (UTC) :I concur with Oni that two weeks is probably not enough. In addition to extending it, I propose we add a vote ceiling that must be reached before it can be closed. So unless a proposal has enough combined supports, opposes, and even neutrals, it will not be taken down yet. It'd be a way to gauge whether or not people have actually had a chance to see it yet. Remember here that neutral votes can and should be made to show that the topic has been seen by a user and considered, even if they don't have an opinion on which way it should go. Also, these are going to be on their own pages, so if something stays up for a while it's not going to be clogging up the promotion page or anything. :I'll go ahead and propose that any rule/major action should be left up for 3 weeks (the rules about going ahead with it if it has 6+ supports and no opposes still applies) AND has had a total of 6 votes of any kind. If something doesn't have six total votes it seems silly to throw it out considering it can have 5 supports and not so much as a neutral. Advertising, such as with this idea, would go a long way to ensuring this minimum vote limit gets reached.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 23:31, April 10, 2011 (UTC) ::In agreement with this as well. -'Minish Link' 23:36, April 10, 2011 (UTC) ::I personally disagree with increasing the number of edits. As someone who does not actively edit but does care about the future of the wiki and tries to participate in discussions about what to do going forward, it would shut me and others out of the conversation. This is a wiki, so the more people allowed to vote, the better in my opinion.--Hylianhero777 (talk) 18:21, April 17, 2011 (UTC) :I'm going into the rule set itself and changing the 2 week limit to 3 and adding a six vote minimum before rejection, as per discussion. Just so it's clear it's noted on the top of the list that it's version 2 and what the changes were. I do worry based on our current activity level that some things may not ever reach the vote minimum of 6 votes, and just end up in limbo like often happens with our just talk about it and make a call system. Maybe we'll be fine if we just advertise more and all try to hit up the list of dead topics a little more often.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 09:58, July 29, 2011 (UTC) ::We could change 6 votes to 5. Either way, I have an idea to help the advertising if this voting policy does never come up: let's make an official Zeldapedia page for list of dead topics. That way topics should not fall into oblivion so easily. —'TheNewSheik' 19:57, July 29, 2011 (UTC) :::There was a topic about that a while ago. There's apparently various forms of site notice type pages that already exist in the wikia framework, but the trick with anything is getting people to remember to go back there.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 22:40, July 29, 2011 (UTC) :I just read through this whole thing, & I'm definitely in favor of it. I agree w/ increasing the time span to 3 weeks & the 6-vote minimum before a topic is archived. I wouldn't decrease this to 5, as that just makes it easier for an ignored topic to get closed w/out real discussion. :I don't think there's been a single voice of dissent so far, just discussion/tweaking of details...so perhaps if nothing significant turns up in the next day or two, this should itself go to a vote? I guess the biggest unresolved point is implementing a site notice so that this & future votes get publicized. Unfortunately, that's an area I have no knowledge of, but others seem certain we have the ability. :I would say something on the right side of our homepage, where the Quote of the Moment & current Temple of Courage fight are displayed, would work nicely. Preferably high enough up that it doesn't require (much) scrolling to become visible. Alternatively, we could do something that shows up on any page, like the Recent Wiki Activity sidebar...that might actually be better since it would be even more visible. Knives182 (talk) 09:03, July 30, 2011 (UTC) ::Sure, lets vote. —'TheNewSheik' 04:42, August 7, 2011 (UTC) Votes to institute system detailed above (3 weeks and 6 total votes before motions are archived as opposed; implementation of sitenotices to inform users) : We obviously need this. The specifics of the proposed system have been well thought out at this point (thanks FD), and have met with virtually no disagreement. Let's do this. Knives182 (talk) 02:39, August 26, 2011 (UTC) : : I'm surprised this hasn't gone through yet. Jedimasterlink (talk) 03:51, August 26, 2011 (UTC) : : Yeah, I'm for this. If we don't do this things just die off. -'Minish Link' 05:08, August 26, 2011 (UTC) : :Obviously I like the idea. This vote will make an excellent test for whether or not we can expect to get 6 responses on such things. And remember we can still make changes the same as we've always done, this is just an additional avenue for official approval to move larger decisions along.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 05:18, August 26, 2011 (UTC) : : Generic statement about this being a good idea goes here. -'Isdrak ' 07:46, August 26, 2011 (UTC) : : Insert supporting comment here Oni Link 10:34, August 26, 2011 (UTC) : We need this. —'TheNewSheik' 15:17, August 26, 2011 (UTC) : : LOL DIDNT READ BUT COOL STORY BRO --AuronKaizer ''' 21:47, August 26, 2011 (UTC) : : MediaWiki:Community-corner needs to be updated along with the sitenotice. But yeah, this should happen. – ''Jäzz ' 23:15, August 26, 2011 (UTC) : : I read through this the other day. I agree with it. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 03:33, September 1, 2011 (UTC) Result Per this very system this can be considered passed, correct? It has 6+ supports, hasn't received a single oppose, & has been open for (much) more than 24 hours. So, hooray! I'll let this thread close & continue the unresolved sitenotice issue here. Knives182 (talk) 00:56, September 8, 2011 (UTC)